Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 13 2016

Consensual review edit

File:Día_nublado_(16748156423).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Beach of Vigo --Harpagornis 20:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose   chromatic aberrations --A.Savin 02:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful composition und QI for me though negligible CAs. -- Spurzem 16:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Our standard is total removal of CA. And why? Because it is incredibly easy to do. --Cccefalon 06:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 05:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Sicales_flaveola_macho.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Good size, colors and meaningful name. Meet all guidelines. --OTAVIO1981 20:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Low quality --A.Savin 01:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support. Good composition, good sharpness of the bird, good colors. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 06:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  Comment Beside the discussion about photographic quality: Do you really support a nomination with such a ridiculous and boastful nomination text? --Cccefalon 19:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
See en:WP:POINT. Usual childish MMORPG playing by Spurzem: just because it was *me* who opposed, he sent it to CR. Today the same game vice versa: sent to CR two good quality already promoted car photos by ArildV, and this considering the fact that Spurzem himself cannot shot somewhere near as good photos of automobiles. Perhaps simply envious or so. Every oppose against his nominations -> revenge oppose on one of mine, of course with stupid rationale. Meanwhile I cannot review his photos, because I have no desire then to see my nominations in CR for stupid reasons. Simply disgusting. Even in German wikipedia it is hard to find similarly disgusting behaviour. --A.Savin 23:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Heavily pixelated + compression artifacts; looks like an upscale -Tsungam 12:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A didactic play about insufficient quality due to jpeg artefacts, oversharpening etc. --Cccefalon 05:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 06:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)